If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

of course the bears fans are defending the tag. With out it no way Briggs is in chicago. At least this way they may get something for him.

I'm not "defending" it becuase it's not something that needs to be defended. It has nothing to do with me being a Bears fan. If the league suspends Tank for 8 games or even a year I'd be fine with it, it's their league policy that they agreed to.

It's like asking if it's fair that you can't watch every game on television without buying Sunday ticket. Sure it sucks, but that's the way the business world works.

Comment

BF51 and njx nailed it. The Players Association agreed to the franchise tag being a part of the collective bargaining agreement, so they have no room to cry over spilled milk.

I find it extremely hard to believe someone making the average of the top five players at their position is being treated unfairly. Furthermore, most of these big contracts are all fluff and will never, evvvver pay out.

And they still have every ability to seek a long term deal with any team that they want to. The team is just protected with the right to first refusal and compensation in the event that they decline to match. If Lance Briggs or Asante Samuel or Charles Grant want to go out and sign a mega-contract somewhere else, they have the right and ability. They find out very quickly, though, how much they are worth when the team can't simply throw money at them and have them for free.

Walter Jones is a perfect example. The guy was franchised, what, three years in a row before he signed his long term deal? He ended up making more off of that then he ever could have dreamed of had he signed a long term deal from the start. Boo hoo if he had to play hard for three straight years to maintain a level that would make him maximum dollars. That is the way it should be, anyway.

The thing these guys don't seem to understand is that job security is a privilege, it is not a right. Sure, everyone wants to have job security and wants to make the most money they can. Unfortunately, like everyone else in the real world, these guys that get slapped with the franchise tag have to follow procedure. If they play hard enough, they will get their money. If they get hurt, they still got a lot of money from the franchise contract, and they wouldn't have gotten all their money off of the long term deal because if it was that bad that they can't play anymore, they are going to get cut.

These players are assets to their current teams. The Bears, the Patriots, the Saints, whoever chooses to franchise a player, have invested a great deal of time, training, coaching, draft pick(s) and money into these players and considering they think so highly of them they are willing to pay them as one of the highest paid at their position, they are obviously vital cogs to their teams success. The team has every right to protect their asset.

Comment

i mean is it fair for the players that are free agents to not seek a big money contract from another team?

I would think that it is fairly fair for them to get the average of the top 5 contracts at their position. I get the whole "what if I get injured" thing, but they are getting paid regardless and the franchise tag does not stop them seeking a contract elsewhere, it just protects the team that has put the development time into them.

Comment

Franchise players are not under contract until they sign the franchise tender. This means that a player given the franchise tag could theoretically sit on his ass for nearly the whole season, show up and sign it (anytime before Week 10, as was said earlier in this thread), and not receive any fines from the team. If anything, it's unfair to the guy who's under a long term contract and is unhappy. Even then, it's still stupid. This whole thread is stupid. Just to reiterate, the Players Association agreed to this.

The Poster Formerly Known As #1SaintsFanSig by jkpigskin

Comment

I'm not "defending" it becuase it's not something that needs to be defended. It has nothing to do with me being a Bears fan. If the league suspends Tank for 8 games or even a year I'd be fine with it, it's their league policy that they agreed to.

It's like asking if it's fair that you can't watch every game on television without buying Sunday ticket. Sure it sucks, but that's the way the business world works.

Sunday Ticket isn't fair but because it is only on direct tv which is not available to everyone.

Comment

I don't like the franchise tag at all, and either do most of the guys who it is slapped on. Players want security in this type of sport and it takes that away.

Yeah, cause you know, getting the average salary of the top 5 highest paid guys at your position just sucks. Please, that one year contract sets the franchised player and his family up pretty comfortably. So they could get hurt or play poorly and miss out on that big contract the next offseason? Same could happen under contract, they just get cut. These guys are getting paid far too well to get any sympathy from me. Besides, they DID agree on the Franchise rules.

The Poster Formerly Known As #1SaintsFanSig by jkpigskin

Comment

Yeah, cause you know, getting the average salary of the top 5 highest paid guys at your position just sucks. Please, that one year contract sets the franchised player and his family up pretty comfortably. So they could get hurt or play poorly and miss out on that big contract the next offseason? Same could happen under contract, they just get cut. These guys are getting paid far too well to get any sympathy from me. Besides, they DID agree on the Franchise rules.